As reported by Bloomberg, Russia’s largest mining company, Nornickel is negotiating to establish a major copper smelting facility in Fangchenggang, a port city in China’s Guangxi region. The proposed plant will use raw copper concentrate transported from Russia and will have the capacity to refine up to 500,000 tons of copper annually. This project aims to bring the final processing a step closer to China’s vast metal market.
Nornickel’s Push for Joint Ventures in China Amid Western Sanctions
Nornickel is Russia’s leading metals and mining company and the world’s largest high-grade nickel and palladium producer. President, Vladimir Potanin said that the company has been exploring options in copper for joint projects in China since earlier this year.
Strategic ambitions for 2030+ metal production

Source: Nornickel
Lately, Western sanctions on Russian commodities have made global trade more difficult. These restrictions limit where and how Russian goods, like metals (aluminum, copper, and nickel) and energy resources, can be sold. As a result, Nornickel has been seeking joint ventures in China since earlier this year even though it is not directly sanctioned by the West.
The mining giant has not disclosed the name of the Chinese partner they are in talks with but they hint at constructing a greenfield plant at the mentioned location.
The smelter project represents a strategic shift for Nornickel, which previously explored partnerships with established Chinese smelters to process Russian concentrate. However, those plans were abandoned in favor of a new, purpose-built facility.
China’s Copper Dominance: Too Much of a Good Thing?
Demand for copper is going high due to renewables, electric vehicles, and grid infrastructure. According to Bloomberg, China’s refined copper output rose by over 5% in 2024 despite certain production curbs. Furthermore, in recent years, the country has rapidly constructed smelters which has led to an increase in its global share for copper.
This burst in capacity is certainly not favorable for the Chinese copper market. Rather it has put tremendous pressure on domestic smelters to slow expansion. This is the outcome of the fierce competition and limited raw materials which have shrunk the profits of the copper industry.

Source: Bloomberg
Grant Sporre, head of metals and mining research at Bloomberg Intelligence had cautioned that China’s excesses threaten the future of copper refining beyond its borders and operations from Chile to Europe and India could be at risk.
The above analysis is based on the fact that ore supply has intensified as new smelters open in India and Indonesia. India is rapidly building plants to cut down on copper imports and strengthen domestic production. Meanwhile, Indonesia has taken steps to keep its ore resources within the country by curbing exports on which many smelters in Asia rely. This shift forces copper smelters in Asia to secure new sources or risk production slowdowns, further straining the already tight market.
However, interestingly some analysts suggested that state-owned Chinese smelters may handle the market downturn better than global competitors. This is simply because of the cost advantages and more modern facilities the country is equipped with.
Is Nornickel’s Entry A Threat to China’s Copper Giants?
Fangchenggang, where the plant would be built, already has a large smelter with a 600,000-ton capacity and is operated by China’s state-owned Jinchuan Group. On top, this project comes at a time when the country is dealing with an oversupply of copper refining capacity.
As a consequence, Nornickel’s project has met substantial resistance from Chinese copper producers, who feel the extra capacity could harm their domestic output.
China’s refined copper imports from Russia have declined by over one-third year-on-year, totaling about 165,000 tons in the first nine months of 2024. The new smelter, if finalized, would help stabilize the flow of Russian copper into China and offer Nornickel an opportunity to circumvent Western trade restrictions while accessing the world’s largest copper market.
Operational performance

Source: Nornickel Sustainability Report
Thus, it’s too early to comment on whether Nornickel’s entry will be a boon or a bane for China’s copper market. The study is speculative and the picture will be clear eventually as the mining company reveals more details of their expansion plans.
Expanding on Critical Resources: Alaska’s Role in U.S. Energy Independence
The challenges Nornickel faces in China underscore the broader global race to secure critical mineral resources, especially as countries like the U.S. strive for energy independence. Alaska, a state rich in mineral deposits, is at the center of efforts to boost domestic production of essential metals. Canadian mining company Alaska Energy Metals Corporation (AEMC) is one such player making strides by exploring Alaska’s underground deposits of nickel, a metal critical for energy transition technologies, particularly electric vehicle batteries.
AEMC President Greg Beischer has highlighted the importance of building a sustainable, domestic supply chain for nickel and other key minerals. With AEMC’s flagship project, the 23,000-acre Nikolai deposit, the company aims to help reduce the U.S.’s reliance on imports and support a shift towards a low-carbon economy. The Nikolai deposit holds substantial nickel reserves and also contains copper, cobalt, platinum, and palladium—metals deemed critical by the U.S. Department of Energy.
AEMC’s activities in Alaska mirror Nornickel’s efforts in Fangchenggang. Both companies recognize the growing need to secure a stable supply of strategic minerals, given geopolitical pressures and the global focus on energy security. For AEMC, overcoming challenges posed by fluctuating nickel prices and securing project funding are priorities to advance the Nikolai project, which they aim to assess economically by 2025. This project also aligns with U.S. initiatives to establish local sources for critical minerals, a strategy that could mitigate reliance on overseas production.
Data and Content Sources:
- Russian Miner Moves Closer to Deal for New Copper Plant in China – Bloomberg
- China’s Copper Production Boom Threatens to Crowd Out the Rest of The World – Bloomberg
- FURTHER READING: Will AI Drive A Global Copper Shortage? BHP Rings the Alarm
Disclosure: Owners, members, directors, and employees of carboncredits.com have/may have stock or option positions in any of the companies mentioned: AEMC.
Carboncredits.com receives compensation for this publication and has a business relationship with any company whose stock(s) is/are mentioned in this article.
Additional disclosure: This communication serves the sole purpose of adding value to the research process and is for information only. Please do your own due diligence. Every investment in securities mentioned in publications of carboncredits.com involves risks that could lead to a total loss of the invested capital.
Please read our Full RISKS and DISCLOSURE here.
The post Nornickel’s Big Copper Bet: Will It Disrupt China’s Smelting Power? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

